This blog is about learning to take a close look at your thoughts, feelings, responses, and reactions to find better and more effective ways to resolve conflicts, lead teams, and clearly communicate to build and maintain both professional and personal relationships...[Read More]

The biggest problem with collaborative problem solving is the collaborative part.

Many new leaders became leaders because they know how to get things done. This individual ability to solve problems, applied in a team environment, can become a weakness as the new leader pushes strongly for a solution that others resist.

I have been that new leader who pushed too strongly too early in the process. That approach rarely worked for me.

As I began working to develop better collaborative problem solving skills, I read How toMake Collaboration Work by David Straus, and I learned an approach for reaching better group decisions. Straus’ basic premise is that collaboration follows six predictable steps or stages.

Personally, I apply what Straus teaches by asking six questions of both myself and others as we work to solve problems together. Over time, I have found that the approach works well.

If possible, I suggest using the questions in the order listed here. If you are already engaged in a collaborative effort that has gotten stuck, you can use these questions to identify where you got off track and to get the discussion moving forward again.

Is there a problem?

I might see a problem. Others might not. Before we can reach an agreement on the best solution for the problem, we have to agree that a problem exists.

How do you define the problem?

How you solve a problem hinges on how you define the problem. If you define it one way and I define it a different way, we will never agree on the solution.

What are some possible causes for the problem?

Once we agree that there is a problem and that we both define it the same way, we can analyze the causes. If we assign different causes to the problem, we will not be able to agree on how to solve it.

What are some different ways we could solve the problem?

This is the brainstorming and creative stage. We want to identify as many possible solutions as possible so that we can pick the best one rather than the first one that we identify.

What would a successful solution look like?

Most of the problems we solve using this process could be solved in many different ways and every solution will have its own set of benefits and drawbacks. At this stage of the process, we agree on the criteria we will use to evaluate the possible solutions. For example, if we must trade quality or time in order to save costs, how much quality or time are we prepared to sacrifice to save money?

Which of the possible solutions best fits the solution criteria?

Finally, we can wrestle with deciding which solution best fits our agreed upon criteria.

This series of questions helps people to identify hidden assumptions or conclusions they might bring to the table that would hinder reaching a conclusion that everyone can accept. The process can sometimes get messy, and it can take some time. The benefit in sticking with it is that the time you invest in the process will pay you back in faster and better implementation due to better buy-in, commitment, and enthusiasm.

Many people rise to leadership positions because they can solve problems. That was certainly true for me. One of the reasons I quickly moved from an individual contributor role to a supervisory position in my first civilian job after the Navy was that I knew how to solve the technical problems my team faced.

I’m guessing that you have a similar experience. You have a history of solving problems well, and that ability created an opportunity for you to become formally recognized as a leader. As you become a leader, though, your responsibility is less about your personal ability to solve problems and more about your ability to work with others to solve problems.

While the skills of the individual problem solver and the group problem solver are similar, there are also some major differences. The individual problem solver can assess a situation and jump to action. As long as the problem gets solved, everyone is happy. The group problem solver has to build consensus, encourage and inspire others, and create buy-in for a proposed solution.

This consensus/inspiration/buy-in piece is often where leaders go wrong as group problem solvers. They see the problem, they identify a solution, and they go to work trying to get everyone onboard with the solution. Then they hit a brick wall.

People question the solution.

People doubt the need to make changes.

People hold on to old ways of doing things. And,

The leader gets frustrated.

There are lots of great tools and techniques you can apply to become a better communicator, to build your influence, and to develop your persuasion skills. All of these tools and techniques have their place in your leadership tool box, and you will probably use them all as you work to solve problems with a group. However, these tools and techniques are secondary to a fundamental premise of group problem solving behavior:

When people don’t agree on the problem definition, they will never agree on the problem solution.

For example, your company has low revenues one quarter. If you think the problem is a failure to close on new leads and Joe thinks that the problem is a failure to get qualified leads, your proposed solution will be totally different from Joe's.

As a result, you will waste time and energy trying to convince each other of the “right” way to solve the revenue shortfall with very little likelihood of reaching a mutually agreeable solution.

As you work with your team, resist the urge to propose solutions before you have invested the time on the front-end of each problem solving effort to ensure that everyone has a common definition of the problem. Set aside your desire to leap to action in the interest of building consensus. In the end, you will get greater returns and better results as you release all of the creative energies of your team in a common, focused direction.

Clearly define the problem. Then, work to create buy-in for the problem definition before you even begin to discuss possible solutions.

Action Step #1: Think about a recent group problem solving effort that went well and another where your team struggled. Did your team have a clear and common definition of the problem in both cases? Reflect on what you can learn from comparing these two efforts.

Action Step #2: Think about a current group problem solving effort. Do you have a clear and commonly understood definition of the problem? If not, meet with your team in the next 24 hours to create a clear problem definition statement.

I am not always “on my game.” Teaching conflict resolution, problem solving, interaction dynamics, and leadership skills does not make me perfect at applying them. It does make me aware, and that awareness helps me to correct my thinking more quickly. It also makes me work on practicing the skills so that I keep getting better.

And still, I have moments of insight about myself, my thinking, and my conflict approaches that are new. I'll share a recent insight with you that I hope also helps you. First, two quick scenarios to frame the insight:

Scenario Number One:

A few days ago, a colleague of mine received a request from a customer to address a challenge, and she did not have all of the information necessary to fix the problem. As she sought information to solve the customer's problem, she contacted a third person who she thought would have the information and authority to correct it, and she got, from her perspective, no real assistance.

Out of frustration and near desperation, she called me to see if I could offer any insights or perspective that could help her to address the customer's issue.

As we talked through the scenario and the various techniques she could use to move the situation towards resolution, I had what my father calls “a blinding flash of the obvious”:

I could fix the problem for her!

Scenario Number Two:

I received an email from a person who had some challenges accessing information at the Bud to Boss Community for leaders. This is the community that Kevin Eikenberry, my co-author, friend and colleague, and I launched to support readers of our book, From Bud to Boss. I really like tech stuff, like building websites, so I take care of many technical details related to that community.

As I was composing the email to let the person know how to fix her problem, I had another blinding flash of the obvious:

I could fix the problem for her!

In both cases, I entered the situation with a “Here's the information you can use to fix your own problem” mindset. In both cases, moving to a “How can I fix this for you?” approach lead to quick resolution, clearer communication, and less conflict as I took a few immediate actions to correct the problems.

There are many situations — in coaching, parenting, and performance management for example — when the approach I started with is a better long-term answer. And, there are many situations where this approach can lead to further conflict because it fails to address the real frustration felt by the other person. Most situations have a bit of both the need for an immediate fix and some coaching about how to avoid or correct the problem in the future.

The first scenario fell in the category of having elements of both quick fix and long-term solution thinking. The second one only needed an immediate fix.

Both scenarios illustrate two key concepts to remember if you want to head-off conflicts before they start:

1. Beware of using your strengths to excess

I am logical, analytical, and relatively patient. I am good at collecting information, analyzing it, and recommending solutions to problems. I like to help other people solve their own problems so that I can equip them to better handle similar situations in the future.

That same strength, carried to excess, can sometimes stop me from taking immediate action to solve the problem and move on.

2. Ask yourself better questions

In both situations, I was initially thinking “How can I help them fix their problem?”

Somewhere in the middle of both interactions, I shifted to “How can I fix their problem for them?”

The first question probably relates to the first point I made about my strength carried to excess, and it reveals a subtle flaw in my thinking. While I wasn't consciously thinking this way, I now realize that the first question carries a bit of “How can I avoid getting involved so that they will go away and leave me alone?” thinking in it.

The second question is a deeper level of personal responsibility than the first. It implies personal involvement and action rather than detached analysis and suggestion.

Here are the questions I ask you to consider as you work to apply the lessons from my insights about myself:

Where are you using your strengths to excess so that they become a source of conflict rather than a resolution for conflict?, and

How can you rephrase the questions that you ask yourself so that you become an active problem solver before conflicts escalate?

As I write this post, I am sitting in a hotel room in Anaheim, California preparing to lead a Bud to Boss workshop. In the process of looking over my notes and thinking through the planned events tomorrow, I started reflecting on a meeting that I facilitated for a client in Indiana last week. The events of this meeting reminded me of a vitally important issue that affects group decision making dynamics:

Until people talk through their perspectives to the point that they feel heard and understood, they will find it difficult to come to a collective decision that they can all live with and act upon.

There where 18 powerful leaders from across the state of Indiana in this meeting – business leaders, educational leaders, and leaders of not-for-profit organizations. Eighteen people with different perspectives, different backgrounds, different view points, and strong opinions.

This organization is facing some pretty stiff challenges in both funding and organization. Each of these leaders is committed to the survival of the organization, and they each have different views of what their collective future looks likes.

In preparation for the meeting, I put together an agenda with a structured process designed to allow the time necessary to talk through issues with an eye towards driving decisions and commitments rather than just talk.

As we began the meeting and I led the group through the initial discussion steps, I could feel myself getting anxious. I began to get worried that we would spend too much time talking and not enough time deciding.

Remember – I built the agenda, and I started to get frustrated with the process.

And then, near the end of the meeting, we did an exercise designed to identify and rank obstacles the group needed to face in reaching their desired future. Quickly, in less than an hour, we listed, ranked and developed specific action plans for overcoming their biggest challenges.

It took us nearly four hours to reach the point that we could make a group decision. Four hours of talk about different perspectives and viewpoints so that we could drive to a conclusion in just a few minutes.

And that's the observation that reminded me of the lesson I mentioned above.

The talking, even though it felt slow to me, was a vital part of the overall process. I'm pretty sure that if we had tried to rush or bypass those steps, we would not have been able to come to the final decisions with the unanimity of purpose and perspective that we did that day.

I believe that the process we used supported the group in coming to a conclusion, and the time to talk it out was a big part of the final success.

The next time you lead a group problem solving session, make sure you allow the time necessary to let everyone have their say. The time you invest in the process will come back to you many times over in the increased energy and productivity that the meeting generates.

As I look at the health care reform debate, I see a number of these behaviors in the way the discussion(s) is (are) proceeding. And, frankly, it makes me sick.

I am not a doctor, pharmacist, attorney, drug company executive or any other person who has deep insights into the intricacies of our health care system. I am, though, a person who can observe the process and see how the current discussion has virtually no hope of arriving at a good conclusion.

Virtually all of the discussion that I have seen mentions or implies that the system itself is broken. Then, the debate turns to how we should redesign the way we pay for the broken system. Almost no substantive discussion about how to fix the system. Just discussions, arguments and rants about how to pay for it.

Excuse me! How does that make any sense at all?

Do I have an opinion about what needs to happen to make the system better. Well, of course I do, and that's not the point of this post.

The point of this post is to learn from the communication, conflict resolution, and problem solving failures present in this discussion.

Problem number one: Discussing solutions before reaching agreement on the definition of the problem.

If we disagree on the definition of the problem, we can never agree on the solution. When people jump to discussing solutions before they discuss their respective viewpoints about how to best define the problem, they lock themselves into a negative spiral of conversation that rarely, if ever, leads to resolution. It might lead to one party “beating” the other. It does not lead to resolution.

Problem number two: Discussing symptoms rather than root causes.

A former co-worker of mine once received a call from a family member for help with a leaking water heater. As my co-worker entered his family member's home, he found his brother-in-law frantically mopping water from the floor trying to stay ahead of the leaking water heater. My co-worker, also my friend, approached the scene and then reached over his brother-in-law's head to shut the supply valve on the water heater. Once the supply of water stopped, the leak slowed and they could clean-up the mess. My friend's brother-in-law was so focused on the symptom (water on the floor) that he didn't stop long enough to fix the root cause (water flowing through the water heater).

Failing to clearly identify root causes forces you to spend inordinate amounts of effort on “fixing” the symptoms rather than dealing with the real problem.

When you're trying your case in the court of public opinion, attempting to preserve your chances for re-election, or hoping for a powerful sound byte for the evening news; the tactics employed by politicians may be useful. Just don't use them in your personal or professional life. They are almost destined to fail.